Member Info for addicknt

Yesterday I was sent a really fascinating article which was published in the Herald. Being computer illiterate I can't send the link, but if you google Sydney Morning Herald Newmont, it comes up as the second result.(it's not behind a paywall.)

It reports on an interview given by Tom Palmer, CEO of Newmont, and his view that he's happy to enter into jvs with other miners to develop copper assets - he mentions BHP - and how Newmont's future pipeline 'is all copper', despite the fact that currently it only accounts for 10% of their output.

It really is worth reading - hat tip to Jerry for sending the article.

NMM, I get your point, but I wonder if our main investors put their foot down? In other words, they told the board to downsize the company and deliver some value from Cascabel before continuing to pursue other projects.

I've always argued we bit off far more than we could chew with such a large number of concessions and was of the opinion that our lack of focus was one of the reasons investors were wary of the company.

1984, I'm surprised we haven't heard from him so far today, particularly as he described it as 'shameful' when some posters didn't post on the day the sp dropped by a fraction. Surely, he's not being hypocritical? As we know, good news to him is a bit like garlic is to a vampire.

NMM, I wasn't aware he was complaining, and would you rather have another dilutive cash raise? Agree about the IR 'function', although in truth it doesn't actually exist i.e we wouldn't notice the difference if Truffle was terminated.

Eloro, it'll happen quicker than six months - availability of cash will see to that (apologies to RK for that one)

Q, the fact SC stressed this point as being 'one of the most crucial principles ' in the agreement is revealing.

I think we can assume we'd have freedom to develop the mine, but the critical element is that we don't need government approval to sell the project. This makes any negotiations so much easier and would provide much comfort to any buyer. This is why I think he highlighted the issue.

1984, I rather suspect you're more or less the only person in the world who thinks this - but there's nothing wrong with being a contrarian!

Ultimately, I don't give a flying toss how people look at it, as long as we can flog it for a good price.

An interesting post from Timbertrader on the GGP page which quotes comments from the CEO of Newmont. It's worth a read.

There's another important clause in the agreement which relates to our freedom and autonomy to make all commercial decisions. The implication is we don't need government approval for corporate actions. This is very significant.

Dispute resolution through international resolution.

Who was it who kept on claiming it would be conducted in Ecuador and was therefore unreliable/worthless? That was a rhetorical question, btw.

DBW, indeed. He's having to simultaneously deal with government relations, the SR, funding, the day-to-day management of the business, investor relations and negotiations with interested parties, and he's doing this with a very small team around him.

The 'snouts in the trough' argument was always bogus, as was the assertion he was sitting on his backside, staring out of the window and wondering what to do next.

Eloro, feeling a bit better about SC? Thanks for posting.

And I like the Ministry's comment '... will make the development of the Cascabel mining project (Imbabura) viable.'

Let's hope this lifts the doubts which some people have about both government support and the project itself.

What did that bloke Cornford say the other day about our relationship with the government? Anyway, one more box ticked.

I assume the author of this article wasn't paying attention at the PDAC conference. And I guess he's missed all the other favorable references to the project from various government sources.

Jerry, as soon as Labour are elected they'll be quite happy to handover any assets the Chinese fancy. I've even heard Rayner talk about selling the Army to them. Apparently, they weren't interested in the Navy.

I agree that we both believe a deal is imminent, but I most certainly do not agree with your assertion that we have cash for the next 'several years' - which were your original words.

I don't believe in trying to gloss over the truth simply to make myself or anyone else better. The company has, for once, been crystal clear about the situation and to attempt to brush it under the carpet is plain daft.

The only people who may be worried are those who don't understand what the company has actually said i.e you. And if you'd bother to read any of my posts since the day the funding was announced, you'll have seen I have consistently said the reason we only raised 10m is because we are close to doing something (sorry for the repetition folks, but this bloke is being deliberately obtuse)

The important bit is the reference to the next few months. You're completely wrong about this, which is surprising given you were once a finance director.

Putting to one side your erroneous thinking, the fact we only raised 10m to cover us 'for the next few months' is, if we have our interpretation right, a good thing, because it tells us they are close to completing a deal.

I addressed your bizarre claims about cash flow last week, but you obviously didn't bother to read it. And my comment about going concern is completely accurate.